More than 130 former youth detainees have sued San Bernardino County, alleging a decades-long pattern of sexual violence by facility staff. The legal action, filed in May, claims that supervisors ignored reports of abuse from 1996 through 2024.

136 Plaintiffs and Three Decades of Alleged Abuse

A lawsuit filed on May 15 in San Bernardino Superior Court details a harrowing culture of misconduct involving 136 plaintiffs.. According to the report , these individuals—both male and female—allege they were subjected to rape, sodomy, and groping while held in county custody between 1996 and 2024.. The claims span multiple sites, including the San Bernardino Youth Justice Center, the High Desert Juvenile Detention and Assessment Center in Apple Valley, and the facility known as the Central Valley Juvenile Detention and Assessment Center.

Attorney Doug Rochen of the law firm DiCello Levitt, who represents the victims, argues that the sheer volume of claimants proves the issue was not a matter of a few "bad apples." Instead, Rochen describes a systemic failure, suggesting that "bad farmers" allowed a culture of abuse to grow unchecked. The lawsuit claims that staff used threats and intimidation to coerce vulnerable youths, while supervisors actively concealed misconduct and ignored existing safeguards.

The 2020 Legal Shift and the 6,800 LA County Cases

The surge in litigation is directly tied to a 2020 change in California state law that expanded the window for child sex abuse survivors to seek civil damages. Under these rules, survivors can file suits until age 40 or within five years of discovering the psychological harm caused by the abuse. This legal opening has triggered a wave of claims across Southern California, most notably in Los Angeles County, where 6,800 alleged sexual abuse cases have been tied to juvenile detention facilities.

Further protections were introduced via Assembly Bill 452, which removes the statute of limitations entirely for childhood sexual assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2024. As the report notes, this has led to thousands of claims involving both foster care and juvenile halls. The scale of the crisis recently sparked protests outside the Los Angeles office of Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, where advocates demanded a full investigation and urged legislators to block any attempts by Los Angeles County officials to roll back these survivor rights.

Doug Rochen's Expanding Litigation in Riverside and San Bernardino

The current legal battle is only one piece of a larger offensive led by Doug Rochen. In addition to the 136 plaintiffs in the May 15 suit, Rochen has indicated plans to file another lawsuit on behalf of 139 additional clients who allege abuse within San Bernardino County facilities. this follows a separate action filed earlier in the month on behalf of 10 former San Bernardino Juvenile Hall detainees who claim they were abused more than two decades ago, naming the county and up to 100 unnamed guards and supervisors as defendants.

Rochen's reach extends beyond San Bernardino. In October 2025, he filed a lawsuit against Riverside County on behalf of six former detainees. That suit alleges that between 2000 and 2012 , staff committed sexual abuse at juvenile facilities located in Riverside, Murrieta, and Indio. These overlapping cases suggest a regional failure in the oversight of youth detention centers across the Inland Empire.

The Silence of San Bernardino and Riverside County Officials

Despite the gravity of the allegations,county officials have remained largely tight-lipped. San Bernardino County spokesperson Janelle Needham stated that the county does not comment on active litigation. Similarly, the Riverside County Probation Department provided only a general statement via spokesperson Kevin Slusarski, asserting that the safety and dignity of youth are top priorities and that the department is committed to professional standards.

Significant gaps in the public record remain. It is still unknown which specific supervisors are accused of concealing misconduct, and the identity of the "100 unnamed adult guards" in the earlier San Bernardino suit has not been disclosed.. Furthermore, while the lawsuits claim safeguards were not enforced, the report does not specify which particular protocols were bypassed or if any staff members have already been criminally charged in connection with these specific 136 plaintiffs.